1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by John Navas, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. Or option 3. they are covered under the carriers license with limited rights
    under that license ?

    I am not sure.

    if these things are only putting out 3 watts same as a normal cell phone I
    can not see how they could cause any problems ? any more problems than a
    Cell phone ??

    Chris Taylor
    http://www.nerys.com/


    > Personally I believe it's Part 27. (I'll use the following example since

    the
    > power output is the same)
    > Argument- Does a 3 watt Bagphone/Carphone have to be licensed or is it
    > covered by the manufacturers/carriers license, or is below the output

    level
    > and doesn't require a license? A BDA output is 3 watts, the same as a
    > Bagphone/Carphone, and can be in any location the same as a BDA. Since a
    > bagphone/Carphone doesn't need to be licensed by the end user, why would a
    > BDA need to be? According to the same regulation, every cell phone of 3
    > watts or less that people own would have to be licensed since they are
    > "mobile transmitters".
    > Since there are thousands of people with bagphones/carphones, and they
    > aren't all licensed, either they are all breaking the rules, or they are
    > exempt from part 22 and are covered by part 27.
    >
    >



    › See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)
  2. On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:40:10 -0500, "Chris Taylor Jr"
    <nospam@nerys.com> wrote:

    >if these things are only putting out 3 watts same as a normal cell phone I
    >can not see how they could cause any problems ? any more problems than a
    >Cell phone ??


    Really? Then I will tell You. The main problem with unlicensed
    repeaters is that they create uplink pollution. Your 3 watt cell phone
    is very carefully designed and tested with respect to spurioses and
    channel mask parameters. In short, it's ONLY allowed to transmit its
    own necessary information on the channel set by the BTS.

    Now think about those band-selective repeaters (or BDAs if You like).
    They will amplify and re-transmit ANYTHING within the whole operating
    band without any selectivity as to WHAT it is actually amplifying. And
    You as a user have no way of knowing, checking or preventing it.

    That's why they are illegal, if not specifically permitted by Your
    operator, and if permitted, they can only operate on this specific
    operators licensed frequencies, not on their competitors. So, getting
    a permission for a general-purpose, multi operator wideband BDA is
    virtually impossible. Simple as that.

    Many operators favors channel-selective repeaters for this very
    reason, even when using quality equipment under their full control

    In the real world, a good repeater is 10KUSD, and setting it up
    correctly is not trivial as they have to be adjusted to the
    location-specific conditions. You need at least a good spectrum
    analyser, sometimes a separate power meter, and in many locations a
    test transmitter/receiver pair like the Ericsson TEMS.


    /Marcus

    --
    Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se
    Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779
    Sweden
    >>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<<
  3. Ahh I never thought of this. For some strange reason I assumed they would
    ONLY retransmit "your" signal from your phone when your phone was
    transmitting.

    I am used to thinking ham repeaters. you have to "key them up" with the
    right codes etc.. or they simply ignore the signal. IE they are keyed to
    "permitted" users so to speak. I had assumed your phone would send a "key"
    and your "bda" would only retransmit signals with that key.

    this adds a whole new twist. so these things are broadband rebroadcasters.
    they just take in anything in their range and spit it back out just as
    broad.

    that WOULD tend to cause problems. big time !

    Chris Taylor
    http://www.nerys.com/



    > Really? Then I will tell You. The main problem with unlicensed
    > repeaters is that they create uplink pollution. Your 3 watt cell phone
    > is very carefully designed and tested with respect to spurioses and
    > channel mask parameters. In short, it's ONLY allowed to transmit its
    > own necessary information on the channel set by the BTS.
    >
    > Now think about those band-selective repeaters (or BDAs if You like).
    > They will amplify and re-transmit ANYTHING within the whole operating
    > band without any selectivity as to WHAT it is actually amplifying. And
    > You as a user have no way of knowing, checking or preventing it.
  4. RDT

    RDT Guest

    In article <b094d$3fdb5d0e$4451eda0$8828@allthenewsgroups.com>,
    Chris Taylor Jr <nospam@nerys.com> wrote:
    >if these things are only putting out 3 watts same as a normal cell phone I
    >can not see how they could cause any problems ? any more problems than a
    >Cell phone ??


    As I told Mark, another ham radio operator who thinks
    that he's a lawyer, unless the BDA causes serious interference, no one is
    going to say a word. The worst that would happen is the carrier says
    "turn it off". And you would have to do that. Just like if you had a
    handset that was not working properly on their network. If the BDA causes
    interference, you have to take it offline, but if it doesn't "no harm, no
    foul."

    RDT
    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill
  5. On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:19:36 -0500, "Chris Taylor Jr"
    <nospam@nerys.com> wrote:

    >Ahh I never thought of this. For some strange reason I assumed they would
    >ONLY retransmit "your" signal from your phone when your phone was
    >transmitting.


    Would be nice though...

    >I am used to thinking ham repeaters. you have to "key them up" with the
    >right codes etc.. or they simply ignore the signal. IE they are keyed to
    >"permitted" users so to speak. I had assumed your phone would send a "key"
    >and your "bda" would only retransmit signals with that key.


    Now this is a 50KUSD repeater..... ;-)

    >this adds a whole new twist. so these things are broadband rebroadcasters.
    >they just take in anything in their range and spit it back out just as
    >broad.
    >
    >that WOULD tend to cause problems. big time !


    Exactly. An this is why they are illegal in most sensible countries
    and jurisdictions.

    I suspect the manufacturers won't stop their misinformation until a
    customer gets a heavy fine from the FCC and sues the manufacturer big
    time for this...


    /Marcus

    --
    Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se
    Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779
    Sweden
    >>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<<
  6. MarkF

    MarkF Guest

    taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in message news:<brifml$1pk$1@panix2.panix.com>...
    > In article <b094d$3fdb5d0e$4451eda0$8828@allthenewsgroups.com>,
    > Chris Taylor Jr <nospam@nerys.com> wrote:
    > >if these things are only putting out 3 watts same as a normal cell phone I
    > >can not see how they could cause any problems ? any more problems than a
    > >Cell phone ??

    >
    > As I told Mark, another ham radio operator who thinks
    > that he's a lawyer, unless the BDA causes serious interference, no one is
    > going to say a word. The worst that would happen is the carrier says
    > "turn it off". And you would have to do that. Just like if you had a
    > handset that was not working properly on their network. If the BDA causes
    > interference, you have to take it offline, but if it doesn't "no harm, no
    > foul."
    >
    > RDT


    Think what you want....my previous posts contained correspondence
    received directly from the FCC but to date no one has directly asked
    me to forward it so I guess no one wants to see it directly from the
    Feds.

    You can do what you want...but the FCC rule still states who may
    operate one legally which is clearly defined in the first paragraph
    which is "the licensee". It doesn't get much clearer than that if you
    have a grasp of the english language.

    As far as my intrepration of the FCC rules, I manage and administer
    over fifty (50) licenses from low band thru 6 GHz, including 800 MHz.
    so you would think that I have read the rules one than once and know
    what the word "licensee" means without having a law degree.

    Regards
    Mark
  7. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <35b1619d.0312091321.7a51ade7@posting.google.com> on 9 Dec 2003 13:21:35
    -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<X1tAb.1129$XF6.28478@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    >>
    >> >> Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.
    >> >
    >> >I haven't hear from Jack either, he is probably out making money.

    >>
    >> Or wrong.

    >
    >Here is a recent post by Jack on NEXTEL1 group on Yahoo where he got
    >the same answer as I:
    >
    >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/message/14108
    >[SNIP]


    He sent me the same message. I felt that the answer might well depend on how
    the question is asked, so I sent my own inquiry to that same FCC address, but
    have yet to receive a response. If and when I do, I will of course post it
    here.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  8. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <jf87tv8tcj2v8h1ifjurape7inipmokk6d@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:57:00
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:47:16 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>In <obt4tv4q022d0nu7dttr7u35tm43if70tv@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:34:24
    >>GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >
    >>>Yeah, but passive repeaters don't work, right? :)

    >
    >>Right.

    >
    >As I said in another post in this thread, one doesn't have to know
    >what one is talking about to post to usenet, and you keep proving it.
    >What's your degree in? English?


    Are you rude by nature, or do you have to work at it? (Since you had nothing
    substantive to say, that's all I have to say.)

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  9. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <oh87tv4cri8puc1chkrlqvn0fjs628u2u7@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:59:29
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:48:34 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>In <oft4tv8cdb11op5uatuj02q2gajlkk1v88@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:36:50
    >>GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:


    >>>Do you want to put in the effort to find out what you've been doing
    >>>wrong?

    >
    >>I haven't been doing anything wrong.

    >
    >Then you live in a universe in which the laws of physics are different
    >than they are in this one.


    Same universe, same laws. :)

    >>And you?

    >
    >I've been using passive repeaters that DO work.


    As I've noted before, passive repeaters can be made to work in certain cases,
    but they aren't a generally practical solution to this problem.

    >>>(They DO work - as Larry, and many others, can testify.)

    >
    >>They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    >>general-purpose solution.

    >
    >Of course not. They only work where there's plenty of outside signal
    >(and there's almost always plenty, if you make the antenna large
    >enough), and there's not enough inside signal.


    The usual problems are indoor coverage and the return path, not sufficient
    outdoor signal getting in, and there can be practical problems with a
    sufficiently large outdoor antenna.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  10. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <c060ee07.0312071739.51143c78@posting.google.com> on 7 Dec 2003 17:39:57
    -0800, bb+graffiti.spam.gopi@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<CPBAb.1195$XF6.32385@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    >> >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:40:20 GMT, John Navas
    >> >>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >> >>>>So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.

    ><snip>
    >> They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    >> general-purpose solution.

    >
    >Stop being such an obtuse moron. Just admit that you've been proven
    >wrong and move on.


    Are you childishly rude by nature, or do you have to work at it? ;)

    >Your initially claimed that they didn't work. Not that they rarely
    >worked, not that they were unreliable, or difficult to make work; you
    >made the absolute claim that they didn't work. It seems like you've
    >backed down significantly and admit that they _can_ work.


    I've noted previously (e.g., <news:xFw0b.13000$dk4.480339@typhoon.sonic.net>)
    that they can be made to work in certain cases. I personally think that a
    wired external antenna generally makes more sense, but, as always, YMMV. :)

    >You're really going to shoot your credibility to hell if you can't
    >distinguish between "impossible" and "improbable."


    My references were to practicality, not (remote) possibility. I think that's
    both reasonable and implicit, but, again, YMMV.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  11. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:56:29 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Are you rude by nature


    Yes, and sadistic too.
  12. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:02:03 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >As I've noted before, passive repeaters can be made to work in certain cases,


    No, you said they don't work. Period.

    >but they aren't a generally practical solution to this problem.


    They're ALWAYS a solution to the problem of having a strong signal
    there, but a weak one here, as long as there and here can be bridged
    by a passive repeater.

    >>>They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    >>>general-purpose solution.


    >>Of course not. They only work where there's plenty of outside signal
    >>(and there's almost always plenty, if you make the antenna large
    >>enough), and there's not enough inside signal.


    >The usual problems are indoor coverage and the return path, not sufficient
    >outdoor signal getting in, and there can be practical problems with a
    >sufficiently large outdoor antenna.


    Well, let's see. There's a rotary 22 element 3 MHz LPV mounted not
    far from where I live, so let's not talk about the size of an antenna
    causing a problem. And one guy, back in the 50s, had stacked rhombics
    - rotatable - on 3.5 MHz. The antenna was larger than a normal house
    and he rotated it, and you're worried about a 13 element 800 MHz beam?
    (Anyone remember Igor's call?)

    Needing anything larger than a 32 element bedspring says that there's
    no tower available, but that's an easily portable antenna at 1900 MHz,
    and not that large at 850 MHz. (It's only about 1 foot by 2 feet at
    1900, if my not-even-BOE calculation is correct.) But it's close to
    20dbd gain. A 5 element quad is also pretty small up there. Even a
    30dbd parabolic is doable. 30dbd. That's 1,000 times amplification
    bidirectionally - over a full dipole. Turns a 200mw handset into 200
    WATTS of radiated power, all aimed directly at the tower. You can
    lose an awful lot of signal in the cable with that kind of gain and
    still have enough left to make "capture ratio" a joke.

    No, John, there are no practical problems in setting up a passive
    repeater at cellphone frequencies. The only practical problem is
    making one work where there's NO signal (which, if someone could
    figure it out, would make him richer than Gates). If there's signal
    available somewhere nearby a passive repeater will bring it to where
    you need it. All it takes is a little gain, and gain is cheap.
  13. MarkF

    MarkF Guest

    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<ObpDb.2889$XF6.66902@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <35b1619d.0312091321.7a51ade7@posting.google.com> on 9 Dec 2003 13:21:35
    > -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:
    >
    > >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<X1tAb.1129$XF6.28478@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    > >>
    > >> >> Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.
    > >> >
    > >> >I haven't hear from Jack either, he is probably out making money.
    > >>
    > >> Or wrong.

    > >
    > >Here is a recent post by Jack on NEXTEL1 group on Yahoo where he got
    > >the same answer as I:
    > >
    > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/message/14108
    > >[SNIP]

    >
    > He sent me the same message. I felt that the answer might well depend on how
    > the question is asked, so I sent my own inquiry to that same FCC address, but
    > have yet to receive a response. If and when I do, I will of course post it
    > here.



    That's fair...awaiting your posted FCC reply.
  14. MarkF

    MarkF Guest

    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<fjpDb.2893$XF6.66838@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <oh87tv4cri8puc1chkrlqvn0fjs628u2u7@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:59:29
    > GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    >
    > >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:48:34 GMT, John Navas
    > ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    > >
    > >>In <oft4tv8cdb11op5uatuj02q2gajlkk1v88@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:36:50
    > >>GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >
    > >>>Do you want to put in the effort to find out what you've been doing
    > >>>wrong?

    >
    > >>I haven't been doing anything wrong.

    > >
    > >Then you live in a universe in which the laws of physics are different
    > >than they are in this one.

    >
    > Same universe, same laws. :)
    >
    > >>And you?

    > >
    > >I've been using passive repeaters that DO work.

    >
    > As I've noted before, passive repeaters can be made to work in certain cases,
    > but they aren't a generally practical solution to this problem.
    >
    > >>>(They DO work - as Larry, and many others, can testify.)

    >
    > >>They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    > >>general-purpose solution.

    > >
    > >Of course not. They only work where there's plenty of outside signal
    > >(and there's almost always plenty, if you make the antenna large
    > >enough), and there's not enough inside signal.

    >
    > The usual problems are indoor coverage and the return path, not sufficient
    > outdoor signal getting in, and there can be practical problems with a
    > sufficiently large outdoor antenna.



    The only place where I have seen passive repeaters work is in
    microwave point to point applications. They have been used for years
    to go around and over mountains that don't require T-1 (or some
    portion thereof) drops at that specific location, may have problems
    with shelter placement, or commercial power connectivity.

    This is very exact science in a controlled non-moving environment with
    parabolic antennas that have very high gain and beamwidths of
    approximately 1 degree. As far as utilizing them in an uncontrolled
    environment with a .6 watt handset, I really doubt that the
    performance gain, if there is any, would be worth the expense and
    time.

    Mark
  15. CWArnold

    CWArnold Guest

    I don't know if anyone notices but you could be pulling into a parking lot
    of some cellular store and have only one bar on the signal meter. When you
    walk into the store you have all the bars there and it's a full strength
    signal. Thats cause they have a repeater in the store. I could only imagine
    how embarassing it would be to try to sell a phone and have no signal in the
    store.

    "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
    news:%opDb.2895$XF6.66816@typhoon.sonic.net...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <c060ee07.0312071739.51143c78@posting.google.com> on 7 Dec 2003

    17:39:57
    > -0800, bb+graffiti.spam.gopi@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote:
    >
    > >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message

    news:<CPBAb.1195$XF6.32385@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    > >> >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:40:20 GMT, John Navas
    > >> >>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    > >> >>>>So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.

    > ><snip>
    > >> They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    > >> general-purpose solution.

    > >
    > >Stop being such an obtuse moron. Just admit that you've been proven
    > >wrong and move on.

    >
    > Are you childishly rude by nature, or do you have to work at it? ;)
    >
    > >Your initially claimed that they didn't work. Not that they rarely
    > >worked, not that they were unreliable, or difficult to make work; you
    > >made the absolute claim that they didn't work. It seems like you've
    > >backed down significantly and admit that they _can_ work.

    >
    > I've noted previously (e.g.,

    <news:xFw0b.13000$dk4.480339@typhoon.sonic.net>)
    > that they can be made to work in certain cases. I personally think that a
    > wired external antenna generally makes more sense, but, as always, YMMV.

    :)
    >
    > >You're really going to shoot your credibility to hell if you can't
    > >distinguish between "impossible" and "improbable."

    >
    > My references were to practicality, not (remote) possibility. I think

    that's
    > both reasonable and implicit, but, again, YMMV.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
  16. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    I wonder how much of this whole thing has to do with terminology? Those
    little sticky things you place under the battery for cellphones are being
    advertised as a "passive repeater". Common knowledge is that THEY don't
    work, but since they are called passive repeaters, what can you say about
    them not working? Maybe we need two classifications of "passive repeater"?
    Real ones and the little sticky things that go under the battery? Or here's
    a concept, maybe we should petition for them *NOT* to be called passive
    repeaters in advertisements and give the general public the wrong idea about
    passive repeaters?

    Okay, this is Usenet, and there is bound to be a little sticky thing that
    goes under the battery salesperson here who will try and argue that they are
    the best thing since sliced bread and everyone should buy one. Flame Away :)



    "CWArnold" <www.cwarnold.com> wrote in message
    news:vtu0he1si3295b@corp.supernews.com...
    > I don't know if anyone notices but you could be pulling into a parking lot
    > of some cellular store and have only one bar on the signal meter. When you
    > walk into the store you have all the bars there and it's a full strength
    > signal. Thats cause they have a repeater in the store. I could only

    imagine
    > how embarassing it would be to try to sell a phone and have no signal in

    the
    > store.
    >
    > "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
    > news:%opDb.2895$XF6.66816@typhoon.sonic.net...
    > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > >
    > > In <c060ee07.0312071739.51143c78@posting.google.com> on 7 Dec 2003

    > 17:39:57
    > > -0800, bb+graffiti.spam.gopi@andrew.cmu.edu (gopi) wrote:
    > >
    > > >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message

    > news:<CPBAb.1195$XF6.32385@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    > > >> >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:40:20 GMT, John Navas
    > > >> >>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    > > >> >>>>So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.
    > > ><snip>
    > > >> They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    > > >> general-purpose solution.
    > > >
    > > >Stop being such an obtuse moron. Just admit that you've been proven
    > > >wrong and move on.

    > >
    > > Are you childishly rude by nature, or do you have to work at it? ;)
    > >
    > > >Your initially claimed that they didn't work. Not that they rarely
    > > >worked, not that they were unreliable, or difficult to make work; you
    > > >made the absolute claim that they didn't work. It seems like you've
    > > >backed down significantly and admit that they _can_ work.

    > >
    > > I've noted previously (e.g.,

    > <news:xFw0b.13000$dk4.480339@typhoon.sonic.net>)
    > > that they can be made to work in certain cases. I personally think that

    a
    > > wired external antenna generally makes more sense, but, as always, YMMV.

    > :)
    > >
    > > >You're really going to shoot your credibility to hell if you can't
    > > >distinguish between "impossible" and "improbable."

    > >
    > > My references were to practicality, not (remote) possibility. I think

    > that's
    > > both reasonable and implicit, but, again, YMMV.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    > > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

    >
    >
  17. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<brne09$531gs$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>...

    > Okay, this is Usenet, and there is bound to be a little sticky thing that
    > goes under the battery salesperson here who will try and argue that they are
    > the best thing since sliced bread and everyone should buy one. Flame Away :)


    Don't knock those stickers- ever since John Edward placed one
    carefully at the base of his neck, he has been able to hear the dead
    300% clearer...
  18. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:de37a2e0.0312161931.563e6eb1@posting.google.com...
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message

    news:<brne09$531gs$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>...
    >
    > > Okay, this is Usenet, and there is bound to be a little sticky thing

    that
    > > goes under the battery salesperson here who will try and argue that they

    are
    > > the best thing since sliced bread and everyone should buy one. Flame

    Away :)
    >
    > Don't knock those stickers- ever since John Edward placed one
    > carefully at the base of his neck, he has been able to hear the dead
    > 300% clearer...


    The dead use cell phones, even though the 6 ft of dirt smother the signal?
    :)
  19. Carl.

    Carl. Guest

    "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:de37a2e0.0312161931.563e6eb1@posting.google.com...
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message

    news:<brne09$531gs$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de>...
    >
    > > Okay, this is Usenet, and there is bound to be a little sticky thing

    that
    > > goes under the battery salesperson here who will try and argue that they

    are
    > > the best thing since sliced bread and everyone should buy one. Flame

    Away :)
    >
    > Don't knock those stickers- ever since John Edward placed one
    > carefully at the base of his neck, he has been able to hear the dead
    > 300% clearer...


    See John Edwards mentioned in this definition of "douche bag":
    http://agnosticidiot.blog-city.com/read/352948.htm


    ---
    Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
  20. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <35b1619d.0312160457.313b35d4@posting.google.com> on 16 Dec 2003 04:57:22
    -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<fjpDb.2893$XF6.66838@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    >>
    >> In <oh87tv4cri8puc1chkrlqvn0fjs628u2u7@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:59:29
    >> GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:48:34 GMT, John Navas
    >> ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >> >
    >> >>In <oft4tv8cdb11op5uatuj02q2gajlkk1v88@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:36:50
    >> >>GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:


    >> As I've noted before, passive repeaters can be made to work in certain cases,
    >> but they aren't a generally practical solution to this problem.
    >>
    >> >>>(They DO work - as Larry, and many others, can testify.)

    >>
    >> >>They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    >> >>general-purpose solution.
    >> >
    >> >Of course not. They only work where there's plenty of outside signal
    >> >(and there's almost always plenty, if you make the antenna large
    >> >enough), and there's not enough inside signal.

    >>
    >> The usual problems are indoor coverage and the return path, not sufficient
    >> outdoor signal getting in, and there can be practical problems with a
    >> sufficiently large outdoor antenna.

    >
    >The only place where I have seen passive repeaters work is in
    >microwave point to point applications. They have been used for years
    >to go around and over mountains that don't require T-1 (or some
    >portion thereof) drops at that specific location, may have problems
    >with shelter placement, or commercial power connectivity.
    >
    >This is very exact science in a controlled non-moving environment with
    >parabolic antennas that have very high gain and beamwidths of
    >approximately 1 degree.


    Indeed, as I noted back in August
    <news:xFw0b.13000$dk4.480339@typhoon.sonic.net>:

    Passive repeaters do work if you have "big" (highly directional)
    antennas and power to burn; e.g., to "bend" a microwave beam around
    an obstruction. In the case of cellular, you have a low-power phone
    with an essentially omnidirectional antenna, so not enough signal
    power is going to reach the inside antenna to do any good from the
    outside antenna after the inherent signal losses, and vice versa.
    For that outside antenna to do any good, you need to connect it to
    the phone with a cable. So-called "passive repeaters" do not work
    >> for [consumer] cellular <<.


    >As far as utilizing them in an uncontrolled
    >environment with a .6 watt handset, I really doubt that the
    >performance gain, if there is any, would be worth the expense and
    >time.


    Agreed. Use a wired external antenna instead.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?